the effect of microscale chemistry experimentation on students ...

JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION IN S.E. ASIA Vol. 30, No. 2

44

THE EFFECT OF MICROSCALE CHEMISTRYEXPERIMENTATION ON STUDENTS’

ATTITUDE AND MOTIVATION TOWARDSCHEMISTRY PRACTICAL WORK

Mashita AbdullahSchool of Chemical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia

Norita MohamedSchool of Chemical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia

Zurida Hj IsmailSchool of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia

Microscale chemistry is an approach to conducting chemistrypracticals which can help overcome increased concerns aboutenvironmental pollution problems as well as rising laboratorycosts. It is accomplished by using miniature labware andsignificantly reduced amounts of chemicals. This paper reportson students’ attitudes and motivation towards chemistrylaboratory work before and after performing microscalechemistry experiments. Students’ perceptions of the microscalechemistry experimentation are also reported. Students wereexposed to ten microscale chemistry experiments in thechemistry laboratory for a period of 8 weeks. In general,students have a positive view of microscale chemistryexperiments. However, findings from the survey conductedshowed no significant difference in attitude and motivationbefore and after the treatment.

Keywords: Microscale chemistry, students’ attitude, motivation, chemistrypractical work

45


Introduction

One of the unique features of effective science teaching is laboratorywork. It is a unique learning environment that is effective in helpingstudents construct their knowledge, develop logical and inquiry-type skills and develop psychomotor skills. Laboratory work alsohas great potential in promoting positive attitudes and providingstudents with opportunities to develop skills regarding cooperationand communication (Hofstein, 2004). Part and parcel of learningchemistry is carrying out laboratory practicals. From an educationalpoint of view, chemistry without laboratory work was seen as abody of factual information and general laws which conveyednothing of lasting power to the mind (Layton, 1990).

The science curriculum in the Malaysian educational system isdesigned for students from primary to the secondary levels. Thescience curriculum comprises three core science subjects and fourelective science subjects and is formulated based on the needs ofthe nation as well as global scientific requirements. The core subjectis science at the primary, lower secondary and upper secondarylevels. Elective science subjects are offered at the upper secondarylevel and consist of biology, chemistry, physics, and additionalscience. The elective science subjects prepare students who are morescientifically inclined to pursue the study of science at post-secondary levels. This group of students may take up careers in thefield of science and technology and thus play a leading role in nationdevelopment.

The chemistry curriculum aims at producing active learners. Tothis end, students are given ample opportunities to engage inscientific investigations through hands-on activities andexperiments. The inquiry approach, incorporating thinking skills,thinking strategies and thoughtful learning, should be emphasisedthroughout the teaching-learning process. The science laboratoryhas always been regarded as the place where students should learn


46

the process of science. Ideally, each student should be whollyresponsible for conducting the experiments from start to finish.However, research has shown that teachers favoured conductingpractical activities in groups (Sharifah & Lewin, 1993). They reportedthat of the teachers surveyed, 54 percent reported group sizes of 4or 5 students per group. Direct observation of classes noted a rangeof 1 to 7 students per group. The large group size limited activeparticipation to 2 to 3 students per group, leaving the others aspassive onlookers. This resulted in low level acquisition of scientificskills and knowledge among the students. Students require thehands-on practical and personal laboratory experiences to acquirethe science process skills.

Other problems associated with practical work in schools includethe lack of facilities. One case study revealed that in general,equipment was adequate for group work in all schools for groupsizes of 4 to 5 students (Sharifah & Lewin, 1993). Research onimplementation of laboratory work assessment, PEKA (PentaksiranKerja Amali / Practical Work Assessment), indicated that theconstraints which hinder the effectiveness of implementing thePEKA programme in classrooms were lack of apparatus andmaterials, students’ negative attitudes, passiveness and lack ofcooperation (Mingan, 2001). This type of assessment requiresstudents to gain manipulative skills by doing practical workindividually. Teachers also appeared to favour group activity, ratherthan individual work, since there was less preparation and washingup needed and it was easier to maintain discipline and controlamong students (Sharifah & Lewin, 1993).

One solution to overcome problems associated with practicalwork in chemistry would be through the implementation ofmicroscale chemistry. Microscale chemistry is a laboratory-based,environmentally safe, pollution-prevention approach accomplishedby using miniature glassware and significantly reduced amountsof chemicals (Singh, Szafran & Pike, 1999). It can use as little as 25

47


to 100 milligrams of solids and liquids can be reduced to between100 to 200 microlitres. Precision or accuracy of experiments is notcompromised. Findings from several studies indicated that themicroscale approach has been shown to be particularly effective inwet analytical chemistry techniques and this technique yielded dataof comparable accuracy and precision to the macroscale technique(Singh, Pike & Szafran, 1995, Singh, McGowan, Szafran & Pike, 2000and Richardson, Stauffer & Henry, 2003). It is recognised as smallscale chemistry by the International Union of Pure and AppliedChemistry (Bradley, 2002). Teachers can use it as a tool to designnew lab activities that could be integrated into their everydayclassrooms (Cooper, Conway & Guseman, 1995).

Among the benefits of microscale chemistry are improved safety,cost and time savings, environment-friendliness, pollutionprevention, more adaptable equipment and also enhancedchemistry learning (McGuire, Ealy & Pickering, 1991, Yazzie, 1998,Bradley, 1999, Singh et al., 1999, Kelkar & Dhavale, 2000, Vermaak& Bradley, 2003, Tallmadge, Homan, Ruth & Bilek, 2004). It is oneof the ways in which chemical education can contribute towardssustainable development. Microscale experiments provide hands-on activities and personal experience since all the students wouldbe able to do experiments individually. Hence, microscale chemistryexperiments are seen as a viable alternative to encourage teachersas well as students to want to do practical work in chemistry. Bradley(1999) reported that the development of the microchemistry systemis based on such equipment which is easy for individual studentsto use and convenient for teachers to implement in schools.

Study Design

In this study, a ‘one group pre-test post-test design’ was used. Thestudy was conducted with 75 Form Four students (three scienceclasses) to expose them to hands-on practical activities and ideason pollution prevention through microscale experimentation. The


48

average age of the students is 16 years old. Pre and posttests wereconducted before and after the treatment. A questionnaire onattitude and motivation towards chemistry laboratory andchemistry learning was administered to all the students prior tothe treatment.

Figure 1. Microscience kit.

During the treatment, all students were required to do the microscaleexperiments individually using a microscale chemistry kit. Thestudents carried out 10 experiments that have been developed atthe School of Chemical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia accordingto the Form Four KBSM (Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Menengah/ Integrated Curriculum for Secondary Schools) chemistry syllabus(Abdullah, Ismail & Mohamed, 2005). Forty experiments have beendesigned using the Microscience Kit (RADMASTE Centre, SouthAfrica) and also small scale glassware. Figure 1 shows the apparatus

Microburette

Glass tube Copper andzinc electrode

Syringe

Vial

Silicone tube

Microspatula

Microstand

Propette

Light emitting diodeStraw electrode Comboplate

49


from the Microscience kit which was used in this study. The kituses a plastic microwell plate with two sizes of microwells. Solidsare handled with plastic microspatulas while liquids are handledusing propettes and syringes.

The topics chosen for the study are electrochemistry and acidsand bases – two topics in the Form Four chemistry curriculum(Curriculum Development Center, 2004) which are considereddifficult by the students. The experiments are listed in Table 1.Table 1List of Experiments

(i) Investigation on the electrolysis of aqueous copper(II) sulphatesolution and sodium hydroxide solution.

(ii) Investigating the effect of types of electrodes on products ofelectrolysis.

(iii) Purification of copper.(iv) Electroplating of an iron nail with copper.(v) Showing the production of electricity from chemical reactions in a

simple Voltaic cell.(vi) Constructing the electrochemical series based on the potential

differences between two metals in a electrochemical cell.(vii) Constructing the electrochemical series using the principle of

displacement of metals.(viii) Measuring the pH values of solutions used in daily life.(ix) Measuring the pH values of acidic and basic solutions with similar

concentrations.(x) Determining the end point in the titration of hydrochloric acid and

sodium hydroxide solution using an acid-base indicator.

Practical or laboratory classes were conducted every week for aduration of two and a half months. In the curriculum, chemistry isgiven four periods per week. The teacher used two periods forteaching the concepts related to a topic and another two periods forconducting microscale experiments related to the concepts. All the


50

classes were taught by the same teacher who was trained to conductthe microscale experiments by the researcher. The students wereinformed that their responses to the survey were confidential. Afterthe treatment, the same attitude and motivation questionnaire wasadministered to all the students with an additional 9 items regardingperceptions towards microscale chemistry experiments. Thestudents were also asked to give open-ended comments in order toobtain their perceptions and feedback about microscale chemistryexperiments. This study was conducted to answer the followingquestions:

1. Is there any significant difference in student attitude towardschemistry laboratory work before and after doing microscaleexperiments?

2. Is there any significant difference in student motivation beforeand after doing microscale experiments?

3. What were the students’ perceptions about microscalechemistry experimentation?

A paired sample t-test was used to test for significant differencesfor attitudes and motivation before and after treatment with p <0.05 being considered as significant. The data for perceptionstowards microscale experiments were reported in terms offrequencies and mean values for each individual item. Open-endedcomments were analysed and reported qualitatively.

Attitude Survey

The questionnaire, entitled Attitude Towards Chemistry LaboratoryWork, developed and validated by Hofstein, Ben-Zvi & Samuel(1976) and modified by Vermaak (1997) was used. The 5-point Likertscale expressed in terms of ‘strongly disagree’,’disagree’, ‘notsure’,’agree’ and ‘strongly agree’ was used. To score the scale, theresponse options were coded 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 according to the responsesfrom strongly disagree to strongly agree. Reverse coding was used

51


for negative items to compare the mean factor values (Table 4). Thepretest consisted of 28 items on chemistry laboratory work with acombination of positive and negative statements. The items aredivided into five factors related to students’ interests in doingpracticals in chemistry, enjoyment of performing practicals andhandling equipment, practical aspects of laboratory work, howstudents consider laboratory work as ‘a way of learning’ andenvironmental value of practical work. The posttest consisted of28 similar items as the pretest and 9 additional items on perceptionstowards microscale chemistry experiments. Open comments werealso asked from the students regarding chemistry laboratory workand microscale chemistry experimentation.

Motivation Survey

For the motivation survey, the Motivated Strategies for LearningQuestionnaire (MSLQ) developed and validated by Pintrich, Smith,Garcia & McKeachie (1993) was used. Again, the 5-point Likert scale‘strongly disagree’,’disagree’, ‘not sure’,’agree’ and ‘strongly agree’was used. For scoring purposes, the response options were coded1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Reversecoding was used for negative items to compare the mean factorvalues for the motivation inventory (Table 6). The survey consistedof 30 items divided into six scales: intrinsic goal orientation, extrinsicgoal orientation, task value, control beliefs of learning, self-efficacyfor learning and performance and test anxiety. The samequestionnaire was administered during the pre and post test.

A pilot test was conducted for both questionnaires on twentyfive Form Four students to assess the suitability and clarity of items.The feed back obtained from students in the pilot test were used tomodify identified weaknesses in the items. The reliability estimatesfor subscale internal consistency for both attitude and motivationquestionnaire were obtained (Table 2). The reliability values for


52

the attitude, perception and motivation scales varied from 0.38 to0.85.Table 2Reliability Estimates for Attitude and Motivation

Instruments Cronbach’s ∝ reliability coefficient

AttitudesFactor 1: Students’ interest in doing practicals 0.53

in chemistryFactor 2: Pure attitudinal factor, demonstrates 0.83

the pupils’ enjoyment in performingpracticals, handling equipment andchemicals

Factor 3: Practical aspects of lab work 0.60Factor 4: Lab work as a way of learning 0.63Factor 5: Environmental values of chemistry 0.79

practical work

Perception towards microscale experiments 0.80

MSLQ

Intrinsic goal orientation 0.38Extrinsic goal orientation 0.69Task Value 0.76Control Belief of Learning Scale 0.78Self-Efficacy for Learning and Performance 0.85Test Anxiety 0.58

Results and Discussion

Table 3 shows the results of the students’ responses to all items whichwere categorised into five factors. In terms of interest in doingchemistry practicals (Factor 1), most of the students were inagreement that performing experiments can increase their interests

53


and perceived that without practicals, learning chemistry wasuninteresting. These findings were also supported by severalresearchers who reported that laboratory work is an importantmedium for promoting students’ interest in chemistry studies andalso enhancing their attitude towards learning in chemistrylaboratory (Ben-Zvi, Hofstein, Samuel & Kempa, 1976; Hofstein &Lunetta, 1982; Okebukola, 1986; Thompson & Soyibo, 2002).However, there are no significant differences for all items in Factor1 between pre and post tests in this study. This indicates that themicroscale approach did not affect students’ interest in doingchemistry practicals. These students had just entered their scienceclasses (Form Four is equivalent to grade 10) and therefore theywere eager to do experiments, no matter what treatment were used.Hofstein, Ben-Zvi & Samuel (1976) had shown that grade 12 studentswho were older were less stimulated by laboratory work.Table 3Student Responses to the Scaled-Responses Attitude Survey

Item Mean Pre test Post test

Factor 1: Students interest in doing practicals inchemistry

4.1 Performing experiments in chemistry 4.04 4.04increases my interest in the subject.

4.15 Learning chemistry without practicals is 4.10 3.96uninteresting.

4.19 Chemistry practical work is very tiring.* 1.70 1.784.21 The more time I spend on chemistry 3.80 3.79

practical work the greater my interest.


54

Factor 2: Pure attitudinal factor, demonstratesthe pupil’s enjoyment of performingpracticals, handling equipment andchemicals

4.2 Practical work in chemistry is boring 1.78 1.95and routine.*

4.4 I enjoy seeing things for myself during 4.60 4.47practicals.

4.12 I enjoy handling equipment and chemicals. 4.09 4.234.16 Performing chemistry experiments is too 2.12 2.08

complicated for me.*4.20 I am looking forward to the next chemistry 3.90 3.98

experiment.4.23 I prefer lessons given by the teacher 2.55 2.30

because practical work is unorganised.*4.25 I do not like chemistry experiments 1.88 1.98

because the observations are never exact.*4.26 With the help of practical work chemistry 4.09 4.03

come alive.

Factor 3: Some practical aspects of lab work

4.3* Performing experiments in chemistry is a 1.54 1.62waste of money.

4.6 More time should be devoted to chemistry 3.36 3.39practical work.

4.8 If I do many experiments myself, I will do 3.02 3.06better in the final exam.

4.10 Periods for practicals are a waste of time.* 1.59 1.644.13 Viewing videos or television which show 2.22 2.06

experiments being performed is better thandoing the experiment myself.*

4.17 Practical work remains important even after 3.67 3.46the novelty wears off.

55


4.22 It is sufficient for one pupil to perform the 1.58 1.57experiment and the rest to get the resultsfrom him.*

4.24 There is no sense of redoing experiments 1.80 1.94that scientists have done in the past.*

Factor 4: How students consider lab work as a wayof learning

4.5 I prefer doing experiments myself to watching 3.61 3.76the teacher demonstrate them.

4.7 I learn more when I do the experiment myself. 3.14 3.544.9 I prefer reading my chemistry book to doing 2.33 2.22

experiments. *4.11 Chemistry can be learnt and understood 1.77 1.90

without practicals.*4.14 I understand basic concepts better when 3.12 3.60

I perform the experiment myself.4.18 Performing experiments help me understand 4.11 4.06

the theoretical material better.Factor 5: Environmental value of chemistry practical

work

4.27 Chemistry practical work too relevant with 3.46 3.53my daily life.

4.28 Doing chemistry practical work can apply 3.86 3.67chemistry knowledge in solving problems.

* Statements formulated negativelyRating was on a scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree)

Factor 2 comprises pure attitudinal factors demonstrating thestudents’ enjoyment of performing practicals, handling equipmentand chemicals, seeing things for themselves and looking forwardto practicals. The data showed that students enjoy handlingequipment and chemicals and seeing things during practicals sincethe responses for both items ranged between 4.09 to 4.60. In fact,


56

the students were not in agreement that chemistry experiments aretoo complicated and unorganised. These findings are supported byTobin (1990) who suggested that meaningful learning is possible inthe laboratory if students are given opportunities to manipulateequipment and materials in order to be able to construct theirknowledge of phenomena and related scientific concepts.

Responses for practical aspects in lab work (Factor 3) showedthat the students thought that more time should be devoted topractical work but were uncertain that doing experimentsindividually would improve their performance in their final examssince the responses were close to ‘3’ for the pre and posttests. Thedata also indicated that they did not agree that performingexperiments were a waste of money and time and perceived thatdoing experiments individually is better than viewing theexperiments on video or on television.

Students’ responses for the items in Factor 4 ranged between3.14 to 4.11 (positive items) and 1.77 to 2.33 (negative items). Thisindicates that students considered lab work as a way of learning.They preferred doing experiments individually compared towatching demonstrations and perceived that they can learn moreand understand the basic concepts better by doing experimentsindividually. During the treatment in this study, the microscaleexperiments provided the students opportunities to do experimentsindividually. Bradley (2001) claimed that practical work shouldinvolve active student participation.

In terms of environmental values (Factor 5), the students slightlyagreed that practical work is relevant to their life and in solvingproblems since their responses were closer to 3.5 to 4. In fact, themean score for item 4.27 that focused on whether practical workwas relevant to their daily life increased in the posttest. Yazzie (1998)reported that Dr. Mono Singh of the National Microscale ChemistryCentre had stated that students who were trained using microscale

57


chemistry techniques changed their views on the environment sincemicroscale experiments are safer and more environmental friendly.Tallmadge, Homan, Ruth & Bilek (2004) also stated that theapplication of microscale chemistry experiments provides theopportunity to raise awareness of the values of environmentalstewardship into pre-college students regardless of the field in whichtheir interests lie.

Although no significant difference was evident among the factors(Table 4), the mean values for several items in certain factors werehigher in the post test. Data from Table 3 indicate that the meanvalues of student responses increased in items 4.5, 4.7, 4.9, 4.12,4.13, 4.14, 4.16, 4.20, 4.23 and 4.27 for the posttest compared to thepretest. Most of these items were categorised under two factorswhich were enjoyment of performing practical and handlingequipment and chemicals and also consideration of labwork as away of learning. These findings are supported by the increased meanvalues in factor 2 and 4 for pre and posttest (Table 4). This indicatesthat after being exposed to the microscale experiments, studentsfelt that they preferred doing experiments themselves compared towatching teacher demonstrations and reading the chemistry book.They also perceived that they can learn more by doing experiments,enjoy handling equipment and chemicals and can also understandbasic concepts better when performing experiments individually.They also suggested that more time should be devoted to practicalwork and perceived that chemistry practical work is relevant indaily life. The lack of significance for each factor may be due to thesmall sample size of this study compared to findings by Vermaak(1997) whose sample size was larger. She had found that there wasa significant difference for factors 1 and 3 at level 0.05 and factors 2and 4 at level 0.01.


58

Table 4Mean Factor Values for the Attitude Inventory

Factor Mean Rating t-value (Standard Deviation)

N = 75

Pre test Post test

1 4.07 3.99 0.97(0.57) (0.54)

2 4.02 4.06 -0.81(0.44) (0.49)

3 3.90 3.87 0.66(0.42) (0.44)

4 3.61 3.77 -2.04(0.55) (0.57)

5 3.66 3.59 0.84(0.73) (0.59)

Level of Significance: 0.05Note: The values of the mean ratings are calculated by reversingthe scoring mode of the negative statements.

Data from Table 4 also indicates that the values of the mean ratingsfor all the factors during the pre and post tests ranged between 3.59to 4.07. The most significant is the fact that the means of all thefactors in the pre and posttest showed a trend close to ‘4’. Thisindicates that for the pre and posttest, the students’ attitude towardschemistry practical work are quite positive. Okebukola (1986) whoused the Attitudes toward Chemistry Laboratory Work Scale developedand validated by Hofstein, Ben-Zvi & Samuel (1976) reported thata greater degree of participation in the science laboratory resultedin an improved attitude towards chemistry learning in general andtowards learning in chemistry laboratory in particular.

Student responses to the scaled-responses motivation survey

59


which were categorised into six scales were analyzed and are shownin Table 5. The data from the pre and post tests for intrinsic goalorientation indicate that students were in a moderate level in thiscategory with mean values ranging from 3.56 to 4.08. However,there were no significant differences for all items in this scalebetween pre and post tests. This indicated that the microscaleapproach did not change students’ preferences for challengingmaterials and assignments in order to learn new things, increasetheir curiosity and concentration in a subject. In contrast, theextrinsic goal orientation among the students was good since theresponses ranged from 4.24 to 4.61. The data also indicated that themicroscale approach did not affect their wants to improve theirexamination results since there were no significant differencesbetween pre and post tests.Table 5Student Responses to the Scaled-Responses Motivation Survey

Item Mean Pre test Post test

Intrinsic goal orientation

2.1 In this subject, I prefer materials that are 3.81 3.69quite challenging, so that I can learnnew things.

2.7 In this subject, I prefer materials which 4.08 3.98increase my curiosity although they aremore difficult to learn.

2.13 Getting the maximum concentration in 3.74 3.77this subject maybe the highestsatisfaction for me.

2.19 Whenever I’ve the chance in this class, 3.56 3.58I will choose the assignment that I canlearn something although I cannot geta good result.


60

Extrinsic goal orientation scale

2.2 To score a good result in this subject is 4.33 4.31my satisfaction.

2.8 For me, the most important thing is to 4.36 4.24improve my examination results, so themost important in this subject is to getgood results.

2.14 If possible, I want to get better results 4.61 4.46compared to other students in thissubject.

2.20 I want to be successful in this subject 4.48 4.45because it is important for me to provemy ability to the family and friends.

Task Value Scale

2.3 I feel that I can use what I get in this 3.40 3.46subject for other subjects.

2.9 It is important for me to learn the material 4.13 4.14in this subject.

2.15 I’m very interested in the syllabus for 3.48 3.49this subject.

2.21 I think the course materials in this subject 4.22 4.18are beneficial for me to learn.

2.24 I like the content of this subject. 3.58 3.562.27 Understanding the content of the subject 4.14 4.08

is very important for me.Control Belief of Learning Scale

2.4 If I learn in a proper way, I will succeed 4.34 4.33in learning this subject.

2.10 It would definitely be my own fault if I 4.08 4.04do not learn the material in this subject.

2.16 If I try my best, I can understand the 4.37 4.24concept and experiment in this subject.

61


2.22 If I cannot understand this subject, it is 4.05 4.10because I do not try my best.

Self-Efficacy for Learning and Performance

2.5 I am confident to get excellent results in 3.53 3.36this subject.

2.11 I’m confident that I can understand the 3.28 3.17difficult topics in this subject.

2.17 I’m confident I can understand basic 3.77 3.57concepts in this subject.

2.25 I’m confident to produce an excellent 3.50 3.35results in my assignment and testsrelated to this subject.

2.28 My target is to succeed in this subject. 3.59 3.372.30 I’m confident I can acquire the skills 4.46 4.52

taught in this subject.2.31 After considering my performance and 3.65 3.58

the teacher for this subject, I think cansucceed in this subject.

Test Anxiety

2.6 Whenever we have a test, I think I’m 3.18 3.72very weak compared to other students.*

2.12 Whenever I take a test, I think about 3.56 3.53the questions in the other concepts sectionsthat I cannot answer.*

2.18 Whenever I am taking the examination, 3.94 4.14I always think of the bad effects if I fail.*

2.23 I do feel uncomfortable and unsure 3.21 3.47whenever I take my examinations.*

2.26 I feel my heart racing whenever I take 3.47 3.37examination.*

*Statements formulated negativelyRating was on a scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree)


62

For the task value scale, students’ responses ranged between 3.40to 3.58 in the pre and posttest for their interest in the syllabus, contentof the subject and its usage for other subjects. For the items onimportance in learning materials, benefits of course material andunderstanding content of subject, the responses were quite goodsince the responses are close to ‘4’. Data indicated that students’responses for all items in control belief of learning ranged from 4.04to 4.37. The mean values were quite similar for all items in the preand post tests except for their understanding of the concepts andexperiments in this subject.

For self-efficacy for learning and performance scale, the students’responses ranged between 3.17 to 3.77 for all items in the pre andpost tests except for their confidence in acquiring the skills taughtin this subject which was 4.46 and 4.52 in the pre and posttestrespectively. Data showed that mean values for most itemsdecreased in the posttest but the differences were not significant.This indicated that the microscale approach did not change students’self efficacy in learning and performance. Yoo, Hong & Yoon (2006)had also conducted research on the effect of a small scale chemistryprogramme on academic self-efficacy of Korean High Schoolstudents. Comparison of the 4 categories in academic self-efficacysuch as self-confidence, self-regulation, task difficulty preferenceand self-efficacy on science were carried out. Her results showedthat the self-confidence score of the small scale chemistry group issignificantly higher than the comparison group. Data for the testanxiety in Table 5 shows that responses for all items ranged between3.18 to 4.14. Overall, this indicates that level of anxiety among thestudents involved in this study was quite high. There were nosignificant differences for most of the items in this scale betweenpre and post test mean values which show that the microscaleapproach did not affect anxiety among the students. Although themicroscale technique permitted the students to do experiments

63


individually, there were still students who were not very confidentto conduct them due to their lack of skills. In contrast, Yoo et al.(2006) found that through their small scale lab programme, students’anxiety towards science were decreased. However, her findings werelimited to the number and level of difficulty of experiments carriedout in her study.

There were no significant differences among the motivation scalesbetween the pre and posttest (Table 6). On the posttest, the meanvalue for most of the items decreased whereas only a few increasedand for every item, only small differences occurred (Table 5). Despitethese small differences on individual items, the overall results forthe pre test and post test showed no significant differences. Overall,this indicates that the microscale experiments did not affect students’motivation in their learning. In contrast, Madeira (2005) found thatthe interest and motivation of the students from Mozambican JuniorSecondary Schools increased after using microchemistry kits. Thissignificant difference in their interest and motivation may be becausetheir students have been exposed to less practical work in chemistrybefore the treatment whereas in the Malaysian context, the studentshave been used to traditional laboratory work in the lowersecondary levels.


64

Table 6Mean Factor Values for All the Motivation Inventory

Scale Mean Rating t-value (Standard Deviation)

N = 75 Pre test Post test

Intrinsic goal orientation 3.80 3.76 0.66(0.49) (0.50)

Extrinsic goal orientation 4.45 4.37 1.56(0.44) (0.49)

Task Value 3.83 3.82 0.13(0.47) (0.45)

Control Belief of Learning 4.21 4.18 0.55(0.57) (0.53)

Self-Efficacy for Learning 3.54 3.42 3.01and Performance (0.46) (0.48)Test Anxiety 2.41 2.35 0.94

(0.58) (0.56)

Level of significance: 0.05Note: The values of the mean ratings are calculated by reversingthe scoring mode of the negative statements.

Berg (2005) reported that no research focused solely on motivationhas been conducted and his studies had shown a relationshipbetween motivation and attitude. His findings indicated that apositive attitude change towards learning chemistry was associatedwith evidence of motivated behaviour, while a negative change waslinked to less motivated behaviour. Findings from this study indicatethat there were no significant attitude and motivation changes as aresult of performing microscale experiments.

Student perceptions towards the microscale chemistryexperiments are presented in Table 7. The mean values for items5.2, 5.5, 5.6 and 5.7 ranged from 3.82 to 4.38. The values showed a

65


trend close to four and above. This indicate that students agreedthat by doing the experiments individually, they can understandthe experiments and concepts better. They were also keen to domore experiments and perceived that microscale experiments werefun and could be done quickly. These findings are also supportedby many researchers who found that conducting experiments withmicroscale techniques promoted time savings (McGuire, Ealy &Pickering, 1991, Bradley, 1999, Singh, Szafran & Pike, 1999, Kelkar& Dhavale, 2000, Vermaak & Bradley, 2003, Tallmadge, Homan, Ruth& Bilek, 2004).Table 7Students’ Perceptions Towards Microscale Chemistry Experimentation

Number Perception towards Percentage of responses (%) MeanOf item microscale chemistry

experiments Disagree/ Unsure Agree/ Strongly disagree Strongly agree

5.1 It is difficult to 84.5 10.4 5.2 1.81handle themicroscaleequipment.

5.2 Doing the 7.7 16.7 75.6 3.95experiment myselfmakes meunderstand theexperiment andconcepts better.

5.3 The results of a 57.2 31.2 11.7 2.40microscaleexperimentsare not observedeasily.

5.4 I was afraid to try 91.0 7.7 1.3 1.59out these microscaleexperiments.


66

5.5 The experiments could 6.4 30.8 62.8 3.82be done quickly.

5.6 It is fun to do the 1.3 1.3 97.4 4.38microscaleexperiments.

5.7 I am keen to do more 1.3 10.3 88.5 4.29microscaleexperiments.

5.8 Microscale experiments 71.8 24.4 3.9 2.00are not realexperiments.

5.9 Microscale chemistry 43.6 46.2 10.2 2.47equipment is acheap version:we should use thereal equipment.

The mean values for items 5.1, 5.3, 5.4, 5.8 and 5.9 range from 1.59to 2.47. This indicated that students did not agree that the microscaleequipment was difficult to handle, results of the experiments werenot observed easily and that they were afraid to try out theexperiment. They also did not agree that the microscale experimentswere not real.

The students perceived that microscale experiments were easyto handle and they were very keen to do more experiments. Theyalso understood the experiments and concepts better by doingexperiments individually. These findings are supported by Vermaak(1997) who reported high positive mean values for the Africanpupils’ perceptions of handling and managing the microscaleexperiments. They felt that microscale experiments were beneficial,fun to do and made them enjoy practical work. In contrast, McGuireet al. (1991) found a persistent preference for macro experimentsover microscale experiments. However, his findings were limitedto the number of experiments and students involved in his study.

67


Analyses of Open Comments

The comments from the students indicate that most of them had apositive view towards chemistry laboratory work. They perceivedthat practical work is fun, can create interest, help them get moreknowlegde and will help them to understand chemistry conceptsbetter. These findings are supported by Wilkinson & Ward (1997)who found that most students agreed with their teacher thatlaboratory work helps them understand theory work better. Theyalso suggested conducting more chemistry practicals and increasingthe quantity of equipment in the laboratory. The negative viewsincluded having difficulties in doing experiments in a group andfailing to finish lengthy experiments.

Most of the students also perceived that microscale chemistryexperiments were fun and easy to handle because the apparatuswas small, not easily broken, safe and could be easily broughtanywhere. By doing microscale experiments, students can learn newskills, increase understanding of concepts and stimulate theirinterest to do experiments and learn chemistry. They also enjoyeddoing microscale experiments because everyone has a chance to doso. Compared to traditional experiments, observations can be madeclearly and quickly. Microscale experiments are also suitable forschools since the apparatus can be easily obtained, experiments poseless danger and are easier to do compared to traditional experiments.This approach can also encourage the students to do experimentscarefully and patiently. Kelkar & Dhavale (2000) also reported thatundergraduate students performed experiments with more care andtheir skills in handling the equipment were markedly improvedafter adoption of this new technique in their laboratory.

Students also suggested doing more microscale experimentsbecause it will help them in understanding chemistry concepts.On the other hand, some thought that the microscale experimentswere quite difficult to handle and the small equipment could be


68

easily lost. Vermaak (1997) reported that the majority of Africanstudents in her study were in favour of this approach with positiveresponses similar to Malaysian students. These findings are alsosupported by Madeira (2005) who obtained similar responses fromMozambican students and teachers. Yoo, Hong & Yoon (2006) alsofound that Korean High School students perceived that small-scalechemistry experiments were convenient, marvelous and interestingand also suitable for doing experiments individually or in a group.

Conclusions

Even though the microscale chemistry experiments did not improvestudent attitudes and motivation towards chemistry practical work,students did develop a positive view of practical work andmicroscale chemistry experimentation. The mean values for all theitems for pre and posttest indicated that the students preferred doingexperiments instead of watching teacher demonstrations. Theyenjoyed handling equipment and chemicals and also understoodbasic concepts better when they performed experimentsindividually. They also suggested that more time should be devotedto practical work and perceived that chemistry was relevant to dailylife. The majority of the students were very supportive of microscalechemistry experiments. Their positive comments on microscalechemistry experiments include those that mentioned theexperiments were fun to do, could be done quickly, were easy tohandle, could stimulate their interest in doing experiments andincrease their understanding of chemistry concepts.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a short term grant from UniversitiSains Malaysia.

69


References

Abdullah, M., Ismail, Z. and Mohamed, N. (2005). Microscaleexperimentation in teaching Chemistry. In M. Ismail, S. Osman & H.M.Yunus (Eds), Proceedings for Seminar Pendidikan JPPG 2005 - Educationfor sustainable development. Penang: Universiti Sains Malaysia. Pleaseinclude page number

Ben-Zvi, R., Hofstein, A., Samuel, D. & Kempa R. F., (1976). The attitudesof high school students towards the use of filmed experiments. Journalof Chemical Education, 53, 575-577.

Berg, C.A.R. (2005). Factors related to observed attitude change towardlearning chemistry among university students. Chemical EducationResearch and Practice, 6(1), 1-18.

Bradley, J.D. (1999). Hands-on practical chemistry for all. Pure AppliedChemistry, 71(5), 817-823.

Bradley, J.D. (2001). UNESCO/IUPAC-CTC global program inmicrochemistry. Pure Applied Chemistry, 73(7), 1215-1219.

Bradley, J.D. (2002). Small-scale chemistry. Chemistry International, 24(3).Retrieved on February 1, 2008 from http://www.iupac.org/publications/ci/2002/2403/smallscalechemistry.html

Cooper, S., Conway, K. and Guseman, P. (1995). Making the most ofmicroscale: using microchemistry as a tool to transform teaching. TheScience Teacher, 65(1), 46-49.

Curriculum Development Center (2004).Chemistry form four curriculumspecifications: Integrated curriculum for secondary schools, Ministry ofEducation, Malaysia.

Hofstein, A. (2004). The laboratory in chemistry education: thirty yearsof experience with developments, implementation and research.Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 5(3), 247-264.

Hofstein, A., Ben-Zvi, R. & Samuel D. (1976). The measurement of theinterest in, and attitudes to, laboratory work amongst Israeli highschool chemistry students. Science Education, 60(3), 401-411.


70

Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of laboratory in scienceteaching: neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research,52, 201-217.

Kelkar, S.L. & Dhavale, D.D. (2000). Microscale experiments in chemistry:the need of the new millenium. Resonance, 5(10), 24-31.

Layton, D. (1990). Student laboratory practice and the history andphilosophy of science. In E.H Hegarty (Ed), The student laboratory andthe science curriculum. London and New York: Routledge.

Madeira, A.C.P., (2005). The influence of practical work on chemistry teachingand learning-an approach using microchemistry kits in Mozambican JuniorSecondary Schools, Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Science,University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.

McGuire, P., Ealy, J. & Pickering, M. (1991). Microscale laboratory at thehigh school level: time efficiency and student response. Journal ofChemical Education, 68(10), 869-871.

Mingan, A. (2001). The implementation of school based practical scienceassessment in several secondary schools in the lower Perak district. M.Ed.Research Paper, Universiti Malaya, Faculty of Education, KualaLumpur.

Okebukola, P.A.O. (1986). An investigation of some factors affectingstudents’ attitudes toward laboratory chemistry. Journal of ChemicalEducation, 63(6), 531-532.

Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A.F., Garcia, T. & McKeachie, W.J. (1993). Reliability& predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learningquestionnaire (MSLQ). Educational & Psychological Measurement, 53,801 - 813.

Richardson, J.N., Stauffer, M.T. & Henry, J.L. (2003). Microscalequantitative analysis of hard water samples using an indirectpotassium permanganate redox titration. Journal of Chemical Education,80(1), 65 - 67.

Sharifah, M. & Lewin, K.M.(Eds) (1993). Insights into science education:planning and policy priorities in Malaysia. International Institute forEducational Planning, Paris.

71


Singh, M.M., McGowan, C.B., Szafran, Z. & Pike, R.M. (2000). Acomparative study of microscale and standard burets. Journal ofChemical Education, 77(5), 625-626.

Singh, M.M., Pike, R.M. & Szafran, Z. (1995). Microscale andselected macroscale experiments for general and advanced generalchemistry: An innovative approach, John Wiley: New York.

Singh, M.M., Szafran, Z. & Pike, R.M. (1999). Microscale chemistry andgreen chemistry: complementary pedagogies. Journal of ChemicalEducation, 76(12), 1684-1686.

Tallmadge, W., Homan, M., Ruth, C. & Bilek, G. (2004). A local pollutionprevention group collaborates with a high school intermediate unitbringing the benefits of microscale chemistry to high school chemistrylabs in the Lake Erie watershed. Chemical Health & Safety. July/August.Please include volume number and page number

Thompson, J. & Soyibo, K. (2002). Effects of lecture, teacherdemonstration, discussion and practical work on 10th graders’attitudes to chemistry and understanding of electrolysis. Research inScience & Technological Education, 20, 25-37.

Tobin, K.G. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities; in pursuitof better questions and answer to improve learning. School Scienceand Mathematics, 90, 403-418.

Vermaak, I. (1997). Evaluation of cost-effective microscale equipment for ahands-on approach to chemistry practical work in secondary schools. Ph.D.Thesis, Faculty of Science, University of the Witwatersrand,Johannesburg.

Vermaak, I. & Bradley, J. (2003). New technologies for effective scienceeducation break the cost barrier, paper presented at the BritishEducational Research Association Conference, Heriot-Watt University,Edinburg, Scotland, 11-13 September 2003.

Wilkinson, J. & Ward, M. (1997). A comparative study of students’ andtheir teacher’s perceptions of laboratory work in secondary schools.Research in Science Education, 27(4), 599-610.


72

Yazzie, P.T. (1998). Microscale chemistry benefits the environment andlab practices. Earth Medicine, 5(3), 1 & 6.

Yoo, M.H., Hong, H.G. & Yoon, H. (2006). The effect of small-scalechemistry (SSC) lab program on students’ science achievement, sciencerelated affective domain and academic self-efficacy in high-schoolchemistry, poster presented at the International Science EducationConference, Singapore, 22-24 November 2006.

the effect of microscale chemistry experimentation on students ...

Documents

Transcript of the effect of microscale chemistry experimentation on students ...